I'd be more impressed if Saddam Hussein had been charged and given the same commentary, at the very least. It was right to remove him. The only thing in doubt is whether is was a good idea for us to have done it. On that point, we're probably much closer in our judgement.

Aren't you aware that since the 70s, we've had a ban on assassinating foreign leaders? We have that ban on the grounds that other nations won't try to assassinate our leaders in return--that seems to work, at least with rational nations.

Perhaps we should have gone all the way to Baghdad in the First Gulf War when we had a large coalition. We could have said, "oops, we didn't mean it. . ."

"Aren't you aware that since the 70s, we've had a ban on assassinating foreign leaders? We have that ban on the grounds that other nations won't try to assassinate our leaders in return--that seems to work, at least with rational nations."

Are you actually that naive? The sole reason that most countries wouldn't attack the U.S. is that they know what sort of shitstorm they'd be bringing down on themselves. The stateless terrorist types don't really give a rat's ass but they also don't have state support

It never surprises me when you're an idiot, but it is annoying. The bounty that you proposed would have been illegal. We aren't allowed to do that. I'm not naive; I'm explaining to you why that law came into being. I think that it came about during the Ford administration, but I'll leave you to look it up.